Simon Thwaites 1,

John Abrahams2 Dominic Thewlis1, 2 Mark Rickman1, 2

1 Centre for Orthopaedic and Trauma Research, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
2 Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

Introduction

Intramedullary (IM) nailing is the typical fixation for adult tibial shaft fractures, the most common long bone fracture [1]. Techniques to perform IM nailing vary, and studies comparing approaches show conflicting results. The absence of a validated, cohort-specific outcome measure has led to a wide range of outcome measures reported, making comparisons difficult. The true extent and prevalence of outcome measures in use is currently not known.

Aims

  • Summarise the outcome tools reported in the assessment of tibial shaft fractures treated with IM nailing.
  • Provide insight into the extent, range, and nature of the publications.
  • Identify any gaps in the literature and provide recommendations for future work.

Methods

PubMed and Embase databases were searched in November 2021. Covidence™ was used for article screening and data extraction. All study designs and populations were included. Ex vivo studies without the presence of tibial shaft fracture were included; studies reporting on open or intra-articular fractures only, or other fracture fixation were excluded. The methodology followed current scoping review guidelines [2, 3].

Results

  • 165 papers included for data extraction (Figure 1):
    • 137 in vivo studies, 26 ex vivo studies, two papers included both study types.
  • 47% of papers were published within the last decade (Figure 2).
  • 27 different countries of origin:
    • most (35%) were from the USA. (supplementary material)
PRISMA flowchart.

Figure 1: PRISMA flowchart.

Table 1: Number of different IM nailing approaches. See supplementary material for detailed breakdown.
in vivo
ex vivo
Approach nfracs % ntibias % Total %
IPN 6147 48.8 199 54.5 6346 49
SE 432 3.4 432 3.3
SPN 1869 14.8 110 30.1 1979 15.3
ND 4141 32.9 56 15.3 4197 32.4
Totals 12589 100 365 100 12954 100
Number of publications per year grouped by IM nailing focus. All "fracture" publications in PubMed also presented.

Figure 2: Number of publications per year grouped by IM nailing focus. All “fracture” publications in PubMed also presented.

Patient outcomes for in vivo studies grouped by IM nailing focus. See supplementary material for full list of patient outcomes.

Figure 3: Patient outcomes for in vivo studies grouped by IM nailing focus. See supplementary material for full list of patient outcomes.

Clinical outcomes for in vivo studies grouped by IM nailing focus. See supplementary material for full list of clinical outcomes.

Figure 4: Clinical outcomes for in vivo studies grouped by IM nailing focus. See supplementary material for full list of clinical outcomes.

Ditribution of papers describing important study characteristics.

Figure 5: Ditribution of papers describing important study characteristics.

In Vivo Studies
  • 12,589 fractures reported (Table 1):
    • 33% of fractures did not describe the nailing approach,
    • medial parapatellar IPN approach was most common (21%).
  • 126 unique patient outcomes (Figure 3):
    • A binary (yes/no) assessment of knee pain was most common (29%),
    • VAS and NRS scores accounted for 46% of all unique patient outcomes.
  • 69 unique clinical outcomes (Figure 4):
    • fracture union was most common (51%).
  • Most studies did not describe:
    • post-operative weight-bearing regime (61%), or
    • the mechanisms of injury (55%) (Figure 5).
  • Most frequent follow-up times were 6 and 12 months (22% each). (supplementary material)
  • 47% were III evidence. (supplementary material)
Outcomes for ex vivo studies grouped by IM nailing focus. See supplementary material for full list of outcomes.

Figure 6: Outcomes for ex vivo studies grouped by IM nailing focus. See supplementary material for full list of outcomes.

Ex Vivo Studies
  • 365 tibias included (Table 1).
  • 33 unique outcomes (Figure 6):
    • nail insertion location was most common (13%).

Conclusion

This is the first study to detail the outcome measures used in this cohort. There was found to be considerable heterogeneity in reporting. The most frequent modality was simply asking whether any knee pain exists. Notably, a number of the scores routinely used were designed for other pathologies and do not contain a kneeling component, shown to cause the most severe pain within this cohort [4]. These results have highlighted a number of gaps in the literature and provide motivation for a validated, cohort-specific outcome measure. This work should ultimately help to inform surgical decision-making on whether an optimal IM nailing technique exists.

Acronyms

IM – intramedullary; IPN – infrapatellar nail; SE – Semi-extended; SPN – suprapatellar nail; ND – no description; NA – not applicable; ROM – range of motion; VAS – visual analogue score; NRS – numerical rating score.

More Information

Scan the QR code below to find out more.

References

1. Courtney PM, Bernstein J, Ahn J. In brief: Closed tibial shaft fractures. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2011;469:3518–21.
2. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169:467–73.
3. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8:19–32.
4. Song SY, Chang HG, Byun JC, Kim TY. Anterior knee pain after tibial intramedullary nailing using a medial paratendinous approach. Journal of orthopaedic trauma. 2012;26:172–7.
5. Thorne WB. Posterdown: An r package built to generate reproducible conference posters for the academic and professional world where powerpoint and pages just won’t cut it. 2019.

Intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures: a scoping review